[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> >Which is to say: it's a great work of conceptual art, and
> >thus does not demand beholding.
> >
> >Edward R. O'Neill
>
> I agree with Edward take. What troubles me is that PSYCHO in its greatness
> manages to free "conceptual art" from any resistance to commodification.
> Louis Schwartz
Ah, but one could easily say that conceptual art is all
about commodification: just think of Warhol's Brillo
boxes.
Duchamp specifically made his "Fountain" a joke not just on
art but on the commodity. Rather than being art, he said it
bespoke his desire not to make art.
Of course, the send-up can always be sold as just another,
wittier, more ironic kind of product.
Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|